Appeal No. 2003-0724
Application 08/858,809
with Seki, for “minimizing cursor movement and also providing a visual cue regarding
the relationship between the pop-up definition message and the designated graphic
element” (answer-page 5).
Our view is that if the examiner is employing Suzuki merely as a showing of a
display “near” a designated picture, Suzuki would be unnecessary to the rejection. We
find as such because the term “near” is a relative one. It appears to us that the
message shown in Figure 5 of Seki is “near” enough to the designated picture to meet
the instant claim language of “said individual explanation is displayed near the
designated picture.”
With regard to the display of an “individual explanation” of the designated
picture, appellants argue that, in Figure 5 of Seki, the message includes information on
circle C1 and straight line S1, in addition to the information on the selected element C2,
concluding that the claim language specifying an “individual explanation” is not met by
Seki.
We think the examiner has a point when it is argued, at page 6 of the answer,
that in those cases, in Seki, where there are no “referential elements” utilized in the
definition of the designated graphic element, there would be no other graphic element
highlighted other than the selected one, in which case the message would include an
explanation of only that selected graphic element.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007